IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0177260.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Desirée Vos-Vromans
  • Silvia Evers
  • Ivan Huijnen
  • Albère Köke
  • Minou Hitters
  • Nieke Rijnders
  • Menno Pont
  • André Knottnerus
  • Rob Smeets

Abstract

Background: A multi-centre RCT has shown that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (MRT) is more effective in reducing fatigue over the long-term in comparison with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but evidence on its cost-effectiveness is lacking. Aim: To compare the cost-effectiveness of MRT versus CBT for patients with CFS from a societal perspective. Methods: A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing MRT with CBT was conducted among 122 patients with CFS diagnosed using the 1994 criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and aged between 18 and 60 years. The societal costs (healthcare costs, patient and family costs, and costs for loss of productivity), fatigue severity, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured over a follow-up period of one year. The main outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was fatigue measured by the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS). The main outcome of the cost-utility analysis was the QALY based on the EuroQol-5D-3L utilities. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and uncertainty was calculated using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes. Results: The data of 109 patients (57 MRT and 52 CBT) were analyzed. MRT was significantly more effective in reducing fatigue at 52 weeks. The mean difference in QALY between the treatments was not significant (0.09, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.19). The total societal costs were significantly higher for patients allocated to MRT (a difference of €5,389, 95% CI: 2,488 to 8,091). MRT has a high probability of being the most cost effective, using fatigue as the primary outcome. The ICER is €856 per unit of the CIS fatigue subscale. The results of the cost-utility analysis, using the QALY, indicate that the CBT had a higher likelihood of being more cost-effective. Conclusions: The probability of being more cost-effective is higher for MRT when using fatigue as primary outcome variable. Using QALY as the primary outcome, CBT has the highest probability of being more cost-effective. Trial registration: ISRCTN77567702.

Suggested Citation

  • Desirée Vos-Vromans & Silvia Evers & Ivan Huijnen & Albère Köke & Minou Hitters & Nieke Rijnders & Menno Pont & André Knottnerus & Rob Smeets, 2017. "Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177260
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177260
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177260&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0177260?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCrone, Paul R. & Sharpe, Michael & Chalder, Trudie & Knapp, Martin & Johnson, Anthony L. & Goldsmith, Kimberley A. & White, Peter D., 2012. "Adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 45274, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. John Brazier & Ray Fitzpatrick, 2002. "Measures of health‐related quality of life in an imperfect world: a comment on Dowie," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 17-19, January.
    3. Jack Dowie, 2002. "Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, January.
    4. David Feeny, 2002. "Commentary on Jack Dowie, “Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition‐specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisions”," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 13-16, January.
    5. Paul McCrone & Michael Sharpe & Trudie Chalder & Martin Knapp & Anthony L Johnson & Kimberley A Goldsmith & Peter D White, 2012. "Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-9, August.
    6. Melse, J.M. & Essink-Bot, M.-L. & Kramers, P.G.N. & Hoeymans, N., 2000. "A national burden of disease calculation: Dutch disability-adjusted life-years," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 90(8), pages 1241-1247.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margreet S H Wortman & Joran Lokkerbol & Johannes C van der Wouden & Bart Visser & Henriëtte E van der Horst & Tim C olde Hartman, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & John E. Brazier & Donna Rowen & Michael Barkham, 2013. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index from the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation–Outcome Measure (CORE-OM)," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 381-395, April.
    2. Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Nataša Perić & Judit Simon, 2022. "Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Yaling Yang & John E. Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Tracey A. Young, 2011. "Estimating a Preference-Based Index for a 5-Dimensional Health State Classification for Asthma Derived from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 281-291, March.
    4. Huazhen Wang & Xin Liu & Bing Lv & Fan Yang & Yanzhu Hong, 2014. "Reliable Multi-Label Learning via Conformal Predictor and Random Forest for Syndrome Differentiation of Chronic Fatigue in Traditional Chinese Medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    5. Margreet S H Wortman & Joran Lokkerbol & Johannes C van der Wouden & Bart Visser & Henriëtte E van der Horst & Tim C olde Hartman, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, October.
    6. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    7. Michaël Schwarzinger & Jean‐Louis Lanoë & Erik Nord & Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, 2004. "Lack of multiplicative transitivity in person trade‐off responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 171-181, February.
    8. Aureliano Paolo Finch & John Brazier & Clara Mukuria, 2021. "Selecting Bolt-on Dimensions for the EQ-5D: Testing the Impact of Hearing, Sleep, Cognition, Energy, and Relationships on Preferences Using Pairwise Choices," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(1), pages 89-99, January.
    9. Hubert R. Jocham & Theo Dassen & Guy Widdershoven & Ruud Halfens, 2006. "Quality of life in palliative care cancer patients: a literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(9), pages 1188-1195, September.
    10. Maike Stolz & Christian Albus & Manfred E. Beutel & Hans-Christian Deter & Kurt Fritzsche & Christoph Herrmann-Lingen & Matthias Michal & Katja Petrowski & Joram Ronel & Jobst-Hendrik Schultz & Wolfga, 2023. "Assessment of health-related quality of life in individuals with depressive symptoms: validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(8), pages 1297-1307, November.
    11. Brazier, John & Rowen, Donna & Tsuchiya, Aki & Yang, Yaling & Young, Tracy A., 2011. "The impact of adding an extra dimension to a preference-based measure," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 245-253, July.
    12. Nadia Yakhelef & Martine Audibert & Gabriella Ferlazzo & Joseph Sitienei & Steve Wanjala & Francis Varaine & Maryline Bonnet & Helena Huerga, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic algorithms including lateral-flow urine lipoarabinomannan for HIV-positive patients with symptoms of tuberculosis," Post-Print halshs-03170014, HAL.
    13. Luqman Tariq & Matthijs van den Berg & Rudolf T Hoogenveen & Pieter H M van Baal, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Opportunistic Screening Programme and Brief Intervention for Excessive Alcohol Use in Primary Care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-8, May.
    14. Chen, Ariel & Jacobsen, Kathryn H. & Deshmukh, Ashish A. & Cantor, Scott B., 2015. "The evolution of the disability-adjusted life year (DALY)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 10-15.
    15. Michela Tinelli & Mandy Ryan & Christine Bond & Anthony Scott, 2013. "Valuing Benefits to Inform a Clinical Trial in Pharmacy," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 163-171, February.
    16. Mara Airoldi & Alec Morton, 2009. "Adjusting life for quality or disability: stylistic difference or substantial dispute?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(11), pages 1237-1247, November.
    17. Wei Pan & Jonathan Flint & Liat Shenhav & Tianli Liu & Mingming Liu & Bin Hu & Tingshao Zhu, 2019. "Re-examining the robustness of voice features in predicting depression: Compared with baseline of confounders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, June.
    18. Patrick Hofstetter & James K. Hammitt, 2002. "Selecting Human Health Metrics for Environmental Decision‐Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 965-983, October.
    19. Nadia Yakhelef & Martine Audibert & Gabriella Ferlazzo & Joseph Sitienei & Steve Wanjala & Francis Varaine & Maryline Bonnet & Helena Huerga, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic algorithms including lateral-flow urine lipoarabinomannan for HIV-positive patients with symptoms of tuberculosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.
    20. Donna Rowen & John Brazier & Aki Tsuchiya & Mónica Hernández Alava, 2012. "Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 715-729, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0177260. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.